- Joined
- Jun 2026
- Subscription
- Live
Admissions profile
Discussions
Is anyone else having trouble navigating the site? I'm trying to click on "Study" and access parts of the pop up (e.g. Learn, Practice, Analytics) but nothing is happening :( the page also freezes so the pop up doesn't go away even when I try to click off of it. Most other parts of the website aren't responsive either.
Reloading and restarting my device hasn't worked.
Same! I was stuck trying to find how any of the answers remotely related to The Awakening until I saw it, then picked C immediately.
I had the same question here :')
According to SageAI, the phrase "in principle" immediately makes it less extreme? I suppose it's like saying "in theory, X is always Y" which is less extreme than only saying "X is always Y."
But that would be too easy, so of course that wouldn't be what the question asks 🤣
Same, I'm genuinely so confused as to how B has anything to do with the theory
For me C matches the best because the introduction paragraph had established LHB as an event that happened and at least ended 4 billion years ago ("vigorous bombardment of debris approximately four billion years ago," "until the LHB ended, life..."), and the three hypotheses presented did not contest this specific fact. Additionally, cratering is linked to LHB in the second sentence of the first paragraph.
By contrast, the rest of the answer choices either are explicitly points that the three hypotheses disagree on, or isn't mentioned.
A: hypothesis 1 + 3 and 2 disagree on the approximate duration of the HLB
B: hypothesis 1 says LHB came from the disintegration of an asteroid or comet; hypothesis 2 and 3 disagree
D: life before LHB wasn't not mentioned, just that life couldn't have survived after LHB ended
E: implied that at least hypothesis 2 vs 3 disagree, given 2 claims LHB lasted a looong time while 3 claims it was very very short
I hope this helps!
I could not decide between A and D to save my life 💀 both seemed equally strongly implied, as both were mentioned in the passage explicitly as considerations. So even if I got it right (I lost the coin toss) it wouldn't be a true victory anyways.
But the final paragraph quite casually does not say that the lawyers believed the limitation to stealing thunder. Sneaky as hell.
This question was tough as hell because I honestly didn't think the author had an attitude here...he just seemed fully neutral to me :( but everyone's saying he has a positive attitude? What gives it away??
On first pass I got baited like so many people here, on blind review I realized that A was wrong because whether Reade's opponents are discussing the identical issues that Reade is discussing has no bearing on whether voters like Reade because of HIS discussion on these issues.
On first pass C did jump out at me, but I misread E to mean "the team" twice and wound up picking that. Then on blind review, I realized that the first term was "team member" 💀
Trying to understand the correct answer feels like convincing myself that the earth is flat.
I had thought that E wasn't correct because the passage doesn't write off the role that innate talent would play in building superior performance, just that other factors (i.e. extensive training) seem to be more significant players.
Unfortunately I struggle to see how A is correct :')
Could not figure out where the passage differentiated between "charitable" and "noncharitable" while reading, so I couldn't figure out whether it was A or B...
The line "The economists argue that a CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, except in charitable institutions, is the protection of their profits." excludes CEOs of charitable institutions. So the line "The economists' view is that even if such a CEO's purpose is to look to the public good and nothing else, the CEO should still work to maximize profits, because that will turn out best for the public anyway." is about CEOs who are NOT CEOs of charitable institutions
Therefore, B is the right answer.
Got it right, but my head felt like exploding keeping it all in LOL
Stimulus:
/educated population --> weak economically and politically
educated population --> serious financial commitment to public education
CONCLUSION: serious financial commitment to public education --> /weak economically and politically
Of all the answer choices, B was the only one that demonstrated this same structure of reasoning flaw.
/empathy --> /good candidates for public office
empathy --> manipulate others easily
CONCLUSION: manipulate others easily --> good caididates for public office
Got the question right, but took too long and very nearly selected the wrong answer, so I'll write a note. ⭐
The stimulus makes a conclusion about dark colored moths based on the light colored moths, making the mistake of false dichotomy!
And D targets the false dichotomy by bringing up a third possibility exists.
Same. But I suppose not providing evidence can also be considered as an inadequate defense--having no defense is also not good enough as a defense
Lassoing B to the stimulus:
challenges its conclusion concerning rap music...
correct, and also straightforward (all the answer choices start with this, after all)
by offering certain additional observations that the music professor does not take into account in his argument
additional observations are:
rap appeals to tradition by using bits of older songs
the themes and styles of rap have developed into a tradition
successful rap musicians conform their work to the preferences of the public
@Night_Owl ^ this. The economist provides evidence that the condition "if current economic policies were not changed" didn't happen, which is not the same as refuting the premise at all.
What's the difference between A and C? They almost read exactly the same to me, and a statement that starts with "would have also" made it read like a theory, rather than evidence.
For me, B is incorrect because the excerpt isn't "cited as evidence," it's DIRECTLY CLAIMING that contamination from rainwater exceeds contamination from industrial discharge.
The convoluted wording of B almost made me choose D over it. However, the excerpt isn't actually used by the editorial to reach its conclusion.
Only "telling residents to sort their garbage would breed resentment," "voluntary system costs the same as non-voluntary system," and "doesn't engender nearly as much resentment" are used to support the conclusion
I also had to attempt posting three times before it went through :( I can't tell if it's an issue with my connection or on the host end